Residents press Johnston County to rewrite or rescind draft UDO; complaints focus on buffers, process and perceived property-rights limits
Loading...
Summary
Hundreds attended a public information session where residents voiced anger over buffer reductions, animal limits, enforcement fines and consultant costs; speakers demanded clearer communication and, in some cases, that the draft be scrapped and rewritten locally.
A packed public session on Johnston County’s proposed Unified Development Ordinance turned sharply confrontational as dozens of residents criticized the draft’s length, process and potential effects on private property, agriculture and small community events.
Several speakers said the draft threatens property rights and asked commissioners to "throw the UDO out." Malika Byrd told the meeting the ordinance has not been communicated well and said the county should abandon the outside consultant work and start over. "You guys keep posting misinformation ... we're gonna address these issues," Byrd said, arguing the $264,000 consultant cost would have been better spent on residents in need.
Other residents raised emotional concerns about rapid development and infrastructure capacity. One longtime landowner said hundreds of houses are proposed near local schools and asked how the county will provide power, water and medical services to support that growth. Another resident said hobby farms and market events provide social services and veteran outreach and warned the draft’s permitting language could imperil those activities.
Officials responded directly to several recurring fears. Braston Newton and staff clarified that statutory protections for bona fide farms remain in place and repeatedly confirmed that animal limits would be removed from the next draft. Newton also distinguished the high stormwater/riparian civil penalties some residents cited (which stem from state law) from ordinary land-use enforcement fines.
Residents also demanded clearer procedural steps for rezoning and objected to the inclusion of paper districts that would only be applied by developer-initiated rezoning requests. Newton said paper districts exist because state law now prevents local governments from downzoning property without each owner’s written consent and that the county began the UDO work before those legislative changes.
The session closed without votes; staff invited residents to leave comments at stations and said they will post a revised version of the UDO for further review. Commissioners and staff said they will continue to refine language and that many contested sections are still under consideration.
